Florida Supreme Court To Decide Whether Executions Can Go Forward

Florida's highest court on Tuesday will hear a case that may determine the fate of some 390 people on the state's death row. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Florida's system for imposing the death penalty is unconstitutional.

Florida has an execution set for next week. The state's highest court now must decide whether it can go forward.

The case involves Cary Michael Lambrix, who killed Clarence Moore Jr. and Aleisha Bryant in 1983 after inviting them back to his trailer for dinner in a rural part of central Florida. By a 10-2 vote in one murder and an 8-4 vote in the other, a jury recommended that Lambrix receive the death penalty. The judge imposed the sentence.

After a series of appeals and a request for clemency were denied, Lambrix was scheduled for execution on Feb. 11. But a decision last month by the U.S. Supreme Court, Hurst v. Florida, now puts that in doubt. In Florida, juries can only recommend, not impose, the death sentence. The court ruled that violates the 6th Amendment right to trial by jury. That leaves a big question.

"Who gets the benefit of the ruling?" asks Martin McClain, a defense lawyer who will be arguing Lambrix's case before Florida's highest court.

The key question the justices will have to decide is whether the U.S. Supreme Court's Hurst decision should be applied retroactively to Lambrix and to the other 389 people currently on Florida's death row.

All of those sentences were imposed in a way that's now deemed unconstitutional.McLain says there's a precedent Florida's Supreme Court will have to consider. It's what happened in 1972, after the U.S. Supreme Court's Furman decision, which found the death penalty unconstitutional nationwide. That decision led to a moratorium on executions whiles states rewrote their laws on capital punishment.

"And what was Florida's response? Florida's response was to vacate every single death sentence, no matter when it had been entered, and convert it to a life sentence. That's what you do when your statute for imposing a death sentence has been rendered unconstitutional," McClain says.

The state of Florida believes the Hurst decision should not be applied retroactively. Prosecutors with the attorney general's office will argue that the Hurst decision builds on an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision, Ring v. Arizona, which was not applied retroactively. "If Ring is not retroactive," prosecutors wrote in their brief, "then Hurst cannot be retroactive."

The state says Lambrix's execution should go ahead next week on schedule, and the sentences of the other 389 people on death row should remain intact.

O.H. Eaton, a retired circuit judge in Florida who's an expert on the death penalty nationwide, says it's entirely possible Florida's highest court will find the Hurst ruling does not apply to those on death row. But if the ruling is applied retroactively, Eaton says it's unlikely the court will order new sentencing hearings for 390 people.

"Because a lot of these cases are very old," Eaton says. "So I would suspect if there is going to be retroactive application, it's going to be reducing cases from death to life in prison."

There's another group of people directly affected by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Those are people in Florida currently charged with crimes eligible for the death penalty. Eaton says he understands there are more than 40 cases like that currently.

"The death penalty at this time does not exist in Florida. All of those cases in the pipeline are going to end up being reversed and life sentences are going to be imposed on them," he says.

Florida's highest court has to determine exactly how Hurst applies to inmates and defendants currently in the system. At the same time, the state Legislature is tackling a thorny issue — how to fix Florida's death penalty statute. Greg Evers, the chairman of the state's Senate Criminal Justice Committee, has started hearings and says he's confident the Legislature will rewrite the law this session and retain the death penalty.

Copyright 2017 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

DAVID GREENE, HOST:

Whether or not a man dies could be determined by a case before Florida's highest court today. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court said Florida's system for imposing the death penalty is unconstitutional. Now the court in Florida has to make a decision that could determine the fate of some 390 people on the state's death row. There is special urgency in one case as NPR's Greg Allen reports.

GREG ALLEN, BYLINE: In 1983, Cary Michael Lambrix killed two people, Clarence Moore Jr. and Aleisha Bryant, after inviting them back to his trailer for dinner in a rural part of central Florida. By a 10-2 vote in one murder and an 8-4 in the other, a jury recommended that Lambrix receive the death penalty. The judge imposed the sentence. After a series of appeals and a request for clemency were denied, Lambrix was scheduled for execution on February 11. But a decision last month by the U.S. Supreme Court, Hurst v. Florida, now puts that in doubt. In Florida, juries can only recommend, not impose, the death sentence. The court ruled that violates the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. That leaves a big question.

MARTIN MCCLAIN: Who gets the benefit of the ruling?

ALLEN: Martin McClain is a defense lawyer who will be arguing Lambrix's case today before Florida's highest court. The key question the justices will have to decide is whether the U.S. Supreme Court's Hurst decision should be applied retroactively to Lambrix and to the other 389 people currently on Florida's death row. All of those sentences were imposed in a way that's now deemed unconstitutional. McClain says there's a precedent Florida's Supreme Court will have to consider. It's what happened in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court's Furman decision, which found the death penalty unconstitutional nationwide. That decision led to a moratorium on executions while states rewrote their laws on capital punishment.

MCCLAIN: And what was Florida's response? Florida's response was to vacate every single death sentence, no matter when it had been entered, and convert it to a life sentence. That's what you do when your statute for imposing a death sentence has been rendered unconstitutional.

ALLEN: The state of Florida believes the Hurst decision should not be applied retroactively. Prosecutors with the attorney general's office will argue that the Hurst decision builds on an earlier U.S. Supreme Court decision. That decision, Ring v. Arizona, was not applied retroactively. If Ring is not retroactive, prosecutors wrote in the brief, then Hurst cannot be retroactive. The state says Lambrix's execution should go ahead next week on schedule, and the sentences of the other 389 people on death row should remain intact. O.H. Eaton is a retired circuit judge in Florida who's an expert on the death penalty nationwide. He says it's entirely possible Florida's highest court will find the Hurst ruling does not apply to those on death row. But if the ruling is applied retroactively, Eaton says, it's unlikely the court will order new sentencing hearings for 390 people.

O.H. EATON: Because a lot of these cases are very old, so I would suspect that if there's going to be retroactive application, it's going to be reducing cases from death to life in prison.

ALLEN: There's another group of people directly affected by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Those are people in Florida currently charged with crimes eligible for the death penalty. Eaton says he understands there are more than 40 cases like that currently.

EATON: The death penalty at this time does not exist in Florida. All of those cases in the pipeline are going to end up being reversed, and life sentences are going to be imposed on them.

ALLEN: Florida's highest court has to determine exactly how Hurst applies to inmates and defendants currently in the system. At the same time, the state legislature is tackling a thorny issue, how to fix Florida's death penalty statute. The chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, Greg Evers, has started hearings and says he's confident the legislature will rewrite the law this session and retain the death penalty. Greg Allen, NPR News, Miami. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

Related Content

Attorneys for a convicted murderer scheduled to be put to death on St. Patrick's Day are asking the Florida Supreme Court for a stay, arguing that records --- including some stored in an insect-infested shed --- were destroyed.

Mark James Asay's case is even more troubling because the Death Row inmate hasn't had a lawyer to represent him in state court for nearly a decade and had no legal representation when Gov. Rick Scott signed the warrant ordering Asay's execution, Asay's new attorney wrote in a motion filed Tuesday.

The Florida Supreme Court has refused to grant a stay in an execution scheduled for next month but ordered oral arguments to hear about the potential impact of a seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision this week striking down the state's death penalty sentencing structure.

The U.S. Supreme Court says Florida’s practice of deciding if someone gets the death penalty is unconstitutional. What does this mean for the almost 400 people on Florida’s death row? Will the legislature try to change the process?

The first flight of Cuban migrants stuck in Costa Rica landed in El Salvador this week … as they hope to come to the U.S. In Washington, Senator and Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio filed legislation to change the benefits Cuban immigrants get when they make it to the U.S.

In a decision a former state Supreme Court justice called "monumental," the U.S. Supreme Courton Tuesday struck down Florida's capital-punishment sentencing system, saying that juries --- not judges--- should be responsible for imposing the death penalty.

The 8-1 decision coincided with the opening day of the 2016 legislative session, sending Republican lawmakers scrambling to address what could have far-reaching implications on death penalty cases throughout the state.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Florida's system for sentencing people to death is unconstitutional because it gives too much power to judges — and not enough to juries — to decide capital sentences.